PDA

View Full Version : Kurd - Baloch & Indo-European language split dates



Kurd
03-20-2016, 04:36 PM
A new paper, "Ancestry sampling for Indo-European phylogeny and dates" https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/68703, dates the Baloch - Kurd split at around 1300 years ago, and the split of Balochi/Kurdi at 1900 years ago from the Iranian language family, using total evidence dating based on a birth death tree.

It also infers dates for the Indo-European language family.

The Balochi-Kurdi split is highlighted in red below.

http://i.imgur.com/OxmxeLc.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/mjsq13y.png

EDIT: The paper groups the Iranian languages as follows:

Balochi, Digor Ossetic, Kurdish, Pashto, Persian, Sariqoli, Shugni, Tajik, Wakhi, Waziri, Zazaki, along with the extinct Old Persian and Avestan.

khanabadoshi
03-20-2016, 04:50 PM
Superbly interesting. The entire tree in general in fascinating.

DMXX
03-20-2016, 06:17 PM
With respect to the Northwest Iranian languages, this isn't a very informative (or new) estimation for the split.

The exclusion of Talysh, Gilaki, Mazandarani and Tati obscures the degree of co-relation that exists between this language branch. That is what is required if we're to arrive at a sensible and precise estimate with respect to Balochi's split from the NW Iranian zone of diversity in, well... NW Iran. :D

I've seen a couple of dendograms over the years that do furnish the NW Iranian branch better than this paper does. Will report back if I find the resources.

Mellifluous
03-20-2016, 06:31 PM
Waziri is not really another language. I'm not sure as to why it's considered a separate language than pashto here. I can understand it just fine. Furthermore, Waziri people consider themselves pashtun and they consider their language to be pashto, and it very obviously is since Waziri is just another dialect.

DMXX
03-20-2016, 06:37 PM
Further to Melli's apt point, I'm not sure why Dari ("Tadjiki") and Persian are clustering with languages such as Wakhi or Sarikoli. The East Iranic languages of Tajikistan are definitely more distant from Persian and Dari than they are to, say, Pashto or Waziri.

There's probably some component of the methodology that's producing these unorthodox clustering patterns.

Kurd
03-20-2016, 11:26 PM
The fact that some sub-branches (dialects/languages) have not been included in the dendogram, for whatever reason, whether to avoid clutter, or due to the uncertainty in the split dates from their respective branches, does not take away from the fact that the tree seems reasonable. For example, I think most can agree that the languages listed under the Iranian group are very reasonable.

Personally, I liked seeing all the various Indo European languages displayed on one graphic.

It is expected that there be some give and take with regards to the split dates, as they are difficult to precisely infer. I believe that the dates shown should be taken as approximations.

It would be nice to have a supplementary tree for the Iranian group, to show the other languages/dialects such as Gilaki, Mazendarani, and the various Kurdi languages/dialects such as Sorani, Gorani, Feyli, and Kurmanji (these are not very mutually intelligible in some cases). The split times I imagine may be difficult to infer though.


Waziri is not really another language. I'm not sure as to why it's considered a separate language than pashto here. I can understand it just fine. Furthermore, Waziri people consider themselves pashtun and they consider their language to be pashto, and it very obviously is since Waziri is just another dialect.


To classify something as a different language or a dialect, is sometimes like splitting hairs, but I agree the term dialect would be more appropriate than different language for Waziri-Pashto. I had friends from Bannu, and they sounded a little different from the traditional soft and hard Pashto. However, the split from the other Pashto dialects at about 500 years ago seems reasonable.

Although the tree shows the split of the various Iranian languages around 2000 years ago, this does not imply that the languages shown currently have similar overlaps with each other, or are equidistant from each other. For example, Kurdi is more mutually intelligible with Farsi than Pashto( even though Pashto like Kurdi, but unlike most other Indo-Iranian languages, uses all three types of adpositions – prepositions, postpositions and circumpositions, and uses additional letters such as zh). The reason for some of the Iranian being more distant and some being closer may have to do with isolation, or with greater mixing between various groups.


Further to Melli's apt point, I'm not sure why Dari ("Tadjiki") and Persian are clustering with languages such as Wakhi or Sarikoli. The East Iranic languages of Tajikistan are definitely more distant from Persian and Dari than they are to, say, Pashto or Waziri.

Intuitively they may seem so, but I don't believe that to be the case. Although they are distant from Dari and Persian, I believe they are even more distant from Pashto based on my familiarity with Pashto, Kurdi, and Farsi by proxy. Pashto vocabulary and grammar are so different from anything Dari/Farsi like, that I sometimes wonder whether steppe invasions have something to do with this. Wikipedia has a table showing a side by side comparison of those languages at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarikoli_language. The split times shown for the Wakhi/Sarikoli sub-group from the Tajik/Persian sub-group, is not that much later than the split of Tajik/Persian/Wakhi from the Pashto sub-group (300-400 years).

surbakhunWeesste
03-21-2016, 12:42 AM
Superbly interesting. The entire tree in general in fascinating.

Its full o' flaws! That's sorta fascinating for sure. :P

DMXX
03-21-2016, 12:50 AM
The fact that some sub-branches (dialects/languages) have not been included in the dendogram, for whatever reason, whether to avoid clutter, or due to the uncertainty in the split dates from their respective branches, does not take away from the fact that the tree seems reasonable. For example, I think most can agree that the languages listed under the Iranian group are very reasonable.

Personally, I liked seeing all the various Indo European languages displayed on one graphic.

It is expected that there be some give and take with regards to the split dates, as they are difficult to precisely infer. I believe that the dates shown should be taken as approximations.


Yes, I suspect an attempt to minimise clutter and to focus on inter-branch dating was the primary aim of the authors. Which is precisely why I do not consider any interpretations of the intra-branch clustering to carry much weight. It isn't restricted to just Iranic; there's also some issues with their depiction of the Germanic languages.

Much better charts have been created in the past which furnish this discussion (such as Izady's work on the Kurdish dialects):

http://www.kurdishacademy.org/sites/default/files/images/map_02.preview.jpg

Based on the colour coding, it appears Izady is of the opinion that Balochi is a separate branch of Northwest Iranic (like the "Pahlavi" and "Tabari" branches) from the Kurdish dialects and split from the common ancestor sometime between 500 B.C. - 1 A.D.; that's certainly earlier than what we are accustomed to.



Intuitively they may seem so, but I don't believe that to be the case. Although they are distant from Dari and Persian, I believe they are even more distant from Pashto based on my familiarity with Pashto, Kurdi, and Farsi by proxy. Pashto vocabulary and grammar are so different from anything Dari/Farsi like, that I sometimes wonder whether steppe invasions have something to do with this. Wikipedia has a table showing a side by side comparison of those languages at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarikoli_language. The split times shown for the Wakhi/Sarikoli sub-group from the Tajik/Persian sub-group, is not that much later than the split of Tajik/Persian/Wakhi from the Pashto sub-group (300-400 years).

I probably was not clear in my earlier message; my point is that Persian/Dari being closer to Wakhi and Sarikoli, than Pashto or Waziri is to Wakhi and Sarikoli, does not agree with other analyses of these languages.

tamilgangster
03-21-2016, 01:42 AM
This whole concept of kurds and baloch people being related appears to be purely political, because they feel solidarity for eachother due to similar circumstances of being stateless

Kurd
03-21-2016, 04:08 AM
This whole concept of kurds and baloch people being related appears to be purely political, because they feel solidarity for eachother due to similar circumstances of being stateless

I suggest you come up with something better if you want to be taken seriously!

You may want to start by going through all my threads and posts on the subject including my scientific references, and studying the online resources on Baloch, Brahui, and Kurds.

In addition to all the posts and resources, I want to remind you that I have personal knowledge on the subject due to my ancestry and ties to the area, lest you have forgotten.

Moderator
03-23-2016, 06:05 AM
[MOD] Let us keep the tone of the conversation civil and open, otherwise infractions may result.

Thank you all for your cooperation and may the thread continue to explore the stated topic.

Moderator
03-23-2016, 08:18 AM
(duplicate)

arbaloch
09-28-2017, 08:50 PM
Excellent information. All historical facts and analysis indicate that the Balochs and Kurds are cousins.